coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  The applicant was a student in the Medical Faculty of the Diyarbakır Dicle University at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.
6.  On 23 March 1995 the applicant was notified by an arrest warrant, which he signed, about the basis and the reasons for his arrest. On the same day he was taken into custody by the police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate (Terörle Mücadele Şubesi) on suspicion of his involvement in the PKK.
7.  On 5 April 1995 the police officers drafted a report of the re‑construction of events, which was signed by the applicant.
8.  On 9 April 1995 the applicant gave a statement to the police, where he confessed that he had been involved in certain activities for the PKK.
9.  On 10 April 1995 he was brought before the judge who ordered his detention on remand.
10.  On 13 April 1995 the chief public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.
11.  On 3 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant of the charges against him and sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account the applicant's behaviour during the trial, the death penalty was commuted to a life sentence. It is to be noted that the Diyarbakır State Security Court held thirty hearings and heard nineteen witnesses.
12.  On 21 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır Security Court.
13.  On 1 March 2000 the decision of the Court of Cassation was pronounced in the presence of the applicant's lawyer.
14.  On 25 April 2000, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request for rectification of decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.
5.  On 30 December 1991 the applicant lodged an application with the Minister of Agriculture (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej), seeking annulment of the Minister’s decision of 3 February 1950 to expropriate the property of the applicant’s father.
6.  The applicant complained several times to the Minister and the Ombudsman about lack of progress in the proceedings.
7.  On 22 June 1995 the Minister informed the applicant that his application would be examined in the fourth quarter of 1995.
8.  On 6 April 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint about the Minister’s inactivity with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).
9.  On 15 January 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the Minister to deal with the applicant’s case within 2 months.
10.  The Minister failed to do so and, on 16 April 2002, the applicant lodged a further complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court about the Minister’s inactivity. The court examined his complaint on 18 February 2003.
11.  In the meantime, on 19 April 2002, the Minister stayed the proceedings. He found that it was necessary to obtain a geodetic expert opinion. The Minister upheld his decision on 10 July 2002.
12.  On 10 March 2004, upon the applicant’s request, the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) quashed both decisions as inadmissible in law.
13.  On 27 September 2004 the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision. He found that the decision of 3 February 1950 was not in accordance with law. However, he refused to restore the property to the applicant.
14.  On 18 October 2004 the applicant made an application to the Minister for the matter to be reconsidered (wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy).
15.  The Minister upheld his original decision on 6 April 2005.
On 28 April 2005 the applicant lodged an application for compensation for the loss of his estate.
16.  The Minister granted the request on 3 October 2005. The applicant was awarded 146,996 Polish zlotys in compensation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Szolnok.
5.  In 1992 several individuals, including the applicant, signed a contract with a view to building an apartment house in common.
6.  In the context of an ensuing dispute about the respective contributions, on 2 May 1995 five participants of the building project brought an action against the applicant. On 10 October 1995 they amended their claims.
7.  On 17 October 1996 the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court appointed the Jászberény District Court to hear the case. On 12 December 1997 the case was eventually transferred to the Kunszent-márton District Court. On 10 February 1998 it was given priority.
8.  Between 10 March 1998 and 7 October 1999 the court held numerous hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. On 17 December 1999 it dismissed the action and the applicant's counterclaims.
9.  On appeal, on 31 May 2000 the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court quashed part of this decision, remitting it to the first-instance court, and upheld the remainder. In the latter respect, on 12 December 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs' petition for review.
10.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, several hearings took place and two expert opinions were obtained between 14 March 2001 and 27 August 2003. On 10 October 2003 the District Court accepted the plaintiffs' action in part, and dismissed the majority of the applicant's counterclaims.
11.  On appeal, on 9 June 2004 the Regional Court amended the first-instance decision. On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Belgium.
5.  On 20 March 1998 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation.
6.  On 22 March 1998 the applicant was brought before a judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his release pending trial.
7.  On 4 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
8.  On 15 September 1998 the İzmir State Security Court joined the trial of the applicant to the ongoing trial of four other accused. Throughout the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer.
9.  On 15 December 1998 the İzmir State Security Court, relying on the applicant's statement to the police, the witness testimonies of other suspects as well as other evidence, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 1 July 1999.
10.  Following the decision of the Court of Cassation the applicant fled to Belgium where he successfully applied for asylum.
11.  The applicant submitted that on 17 August 2005 he was arrested and taken into custody in Spain on the basis of a Red Notice issued by Turkey via Interpol on the ground of his original indictment in July 1999 and his subsequent case before the Court. He was released the next day since he had been granted asylum by Belgium. The Government denied the existence of any such notice.
12.  The Government further submitted that the applicant's sentence had been reduced to six years and three months' imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the new Criminal Code.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău. She is an invalid (second degree).
6.  The applicant and her family (her husband and three children, two of whom were minors at the relevant time) rented an apartment from the State. In 1994 the apartment was seriously damaged due to leakage from water pipes. Two special commissions of the Chişinău Municipality confirmed the damage to the apartment and found that it was not habitable and was in imminent danger of collapse. The applicant’s requests to be offered alternative accommodation as required by law were rejected by the Municipality due to the lack of available apartments. The applicant and her family continued to live in the apartment until December 2000 when they moved to a rented room.
7.  In April 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the Municipality claiming the right to receive a new apartment. On 10 October 1995 the Chişinău District Court found for the applicant and ordered the Municipality to provide accommodation for her five-person family (“the 1995 judgment”). The court issued an enforcement warrant no. 2-383/95. On 21 October 1995 the applicant requested the bailiff and the court to enforce the order.
8.  Because the Municipality refused to comply with the judgment of 10 October 1995, the applicant requested the court to change the means of enforcing the judgment, claiming the monetary value of the apartment.
9.  On 29 September 1998 the Chişinău District Court issued a new judgment, obliging the Municipality to pay the applicant 146,440 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 24,000 United States dollars at the time) representing the market value of a four-room apartment in Chişinău (“the 1998 judgment”). The court issued a new enforcement warrant under the same number as that issued in 1995 (no. 2-383/95).
10.  On 27 October 1998 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that judgment. There was no further appeal and the judgment became final.
11.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff did not enforce. Following the applicant’s request, the Chişinău District Court froze the Municipality’s bank account on 13 November 1998, but there was apparently no money on that account. On 9 June 1999 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the 1998 judgment. The Ministry of Justice forwarded the letter to the Chişinău District Court.
12.  Following the applicant’s request one of the Municipality’s buildings was seized for sale at a public auction. However, it was not sold.
13.  According to the applicant, the 1998 judgment was enforced on 11 January 2002. According to the Government, the date of enforcement was 26 December 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently detained on remand in the Edirne F-type prison.
5.  On 28 November 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate. On 10 December 1992 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered his detention on remand.
6.  On 5 January 1993 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and twenty-nine others, charging them with membership of an illegal left-wing organisation, contrary to Article 146 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Law on Prevention of Terrorism.
7.  At the hearing of 22 November 1993 before the Istanbul State Security Court, which included a military judge, the accused protested against the proceedings by shouting slogans in the hearing room. Following the intervention of the security forces, they broke the windows of the court building.
8.  At the hearings held between 1993 and 1994 the court heard the testimony of several witnesses and took the statements of the accused.
9.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.
10.  At the end of almost every hearing the court dismissed the applicant’s request to be released pending trial and ordered his continued detention on remand, having regard to the nature of the offence and the content of the case file. At the hearings during which the applicant was absent the court considered his situation of its own motion and ordered his detention on remand, relying on the same reasons.
11.  At the hearing of 27 March 2000 the court finished taking the final statements of almost all the accused including the applicant and stated that no additional time would be given to those who had not yet submitted their final observations.
12.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant filed a petition with a different chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, complaining about the court’s order for his continued remand in custody. On 1 August 2001 his objection was dismissed on account of the nature of the offence and the content of the case file.
13.  By 12 October 2001 fifty-five hearings had been held before the Istanbul State Security Court and the judges on the bench of the court had been changed on six occasions.
14.  State Security Courts were abolished by constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004. As a result, all of the procedural safeguards provided for by the ordinary criminal procedure henceforth became applicable to all proceedings without exception.
15.  On 27 October 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
16.  On 13 July 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the State Security Court on procedural grounds.
17.  The case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court and the applicant is still in detention on remand. The latest hearing was held on 2 December 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Debrecen.
5.  In May 1990 a company brought an action in damages against the applicant. On 1 November 1991 the Supreme Court appointed the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court to hear the case. On 22 July 1992 the applicant brought a counter-claim.
6.  After having held three hearings and having obtained the opinion of an expert, on 2 December 1996 the Regional Court dismissed all claims.
7.  On 18 February 1998 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision in its part concerning the applicant's counter-claim and remitted it to the Regional Court.
8.  On 21 May 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing and appointed an expert.
9.  On 25 February 2000 the Regional Court ordered the plaintiff to pay the applicant 1,300,000 Hungarian forints plus accrued interest and dismissed the remainder of his claims.
10.  On appeal, on 22 May 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 28 October 1991 the applicant brought an action in the Budapest Regional Court seeking the annulment of a contract and the ownership of a real-estate. Between 13 February 1992 and 31 May 1994 the court held eight hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
6.  On 10 November 1994 the proceedings were interrupted on account of the death of one of the respondents. The successors were not identified until 24 February 1999. The court informed the parties of this fact on 9 November 1999, and the proceedings resumed on 4 January 2000.
7.  Four further hearings took place between 30 May 2000 and 9 March 2001.
8.  On 8 June 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's action.
9.  On 21 June 2001 the applicant appealed. Following repeated warnings from the appellate court, his appeal was only lodged in due and proper form on 3 December 2001.
10.  On 11 December 2002 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, dismissed the applicant's appeal.
11.  On 7 October 2003 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the applicant's petition for review, without an examination of the merits.
6.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1973 respectively and were detained in Malatya prison at the time of the lodging of their applications with the Court.
7.  On 1 November 2001 the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of their involvement in the activities of the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers’ Party). On 9 November 2001 the Tunceli Magistrates’ Court ordered their remand in custody.
8.  The public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court in his indictment, dated 7 December 2001, accused the first applicant of membership of the PKK and the second applicant of aiding and abetting that organisation. The charges were brought under Articles 168 and 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
9.  On 10 September 2002 the Malatya State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced the first applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment and the second applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and a fine of 177,957,000 Turkish liras.
10.  The parties did not submit any documents pertaining to the outcome of the criminal proceedings. However, in their submissions on just satisfaction, dated 21 July 2005, the applicants stated that the Malatya State Security Court, pursuant to Law no. 4959 of 29 July 2003 on rehabilitation (topluma kazandırma), had decided not to sentence the applicants (ceza tertibi) and suspended the proceedings. They further submitted that this decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Omsk.
5.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Defence to claim damages in respect of an injury he had sustained during his military service in Afghanistan.
6.  On 22 October 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Omsk (“the District Court”) granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him a lump sum compensation of 513,293 Russian roubles (RUR) and life long monthly payments of RUR 8,217.08. The judgment entered into force on 6 February 2002 after it had been upheld on appeal.
7.  On 15 February 2002 two writs of execution in respect of each of the awarded amounts were issued and sent to the Omsk Department of the Federal Treasury for payment.
8.  By letters of 27 March and 21 October 2002 the Omsk Department of the Federal Treasury returned the writs of execution to the applicant without enforcement. It referred to insufficient funds and invited the applicant to submit the writs of execution to the Ministry of Defence.
9.  In 2003 the applicant filed a new action against the Ministry of Defence, complaining about non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 October 2001, as upheld on 6 February 2002, and seeking the adjustment of the awarded amounts to the minimum monthly wage.
10.  By judgment of 27 November 2003 the District Court confirmed that the judgment of 22 October 2001, as upheld by the appeal decision of 6 February 2002, had not been enforced in view of the lack of the debtor’s funds, but dismissed the applicant’s claim for increase in payments as unfounded. That judgment was upheld on appeal on 11 February 2004.
11.  In December 2004 the sum of RUR 513,293 was paid to the applicant, pursuant to the judgment of 22 October 2001, as confirmed by the appeal decision of 6 February 2002.
12.  Since November 2005 the applicant has been in receipt of monthly payments of RUR 8,217.08, as ordered by the judgment of 22 October 2001.
5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Nedelevo.
6.  Two burglaries were committed in the home of an old lady on 13 and 31 May 1998 as a result of which the burglar, through use of force and coercion, stole a total of 10,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL – approximately 5.13 euros (EUR)). On the latter occasion, the burglar was also armed.
7.  A preliminary investigation in respect of the second burglary was opened against an unknown offender on 2 June 1998.
8.  On 24 September 1998 the applicant was charged with the two burglaries and was detained on remand. He was questioned on the same day and confessed to having committed the burglaries.
9.  On 10 November 1998 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against the applicant with the Plovdiv District Court accusing him of having committed the two burglaries through use of force and coercion, having stolen a total of BGL 10,000 (approximately EUR 5.13) and for having been armed on the second occasion (Articles 198 § 1 and 170 § 2 of the Criminal Code).
10.  The Plovdiv District Court conducted five hearings between 4 May 1999 and 10 April 2000.
11.  In a judgment of 10 April 2000 the Plovdiv District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a cumulative sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment on 21 April 2000.
12.  The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted three hearings on 17 May, 13 June and 14 September 2000.
13.  In a judgment of 21 September 2000 the Plovdiv Regional Court partly quashed the lower court's judgment as it found that the applicant had not used force during the burglary of 13 May 1998. It upheld the remainder of the judgment against the applicant.
14.  No appeal was filed against the judgment of the Plovdiv Regional Court and it entered into force.
15.  On 24 September 1998 the applicant was detained on remand upon a decision of an investigator which was confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office later on the same day. The grounds for detaining the applicant were that he may abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation but no specific facts or evidence in support of the said assessment were cited or relied on in the decision for his detention. On 10 April 2000 the Plovdiv District Court sentenced the applicant to four and a half years' imprisonment.
16.  At the trial stage of the proceedings the applicant filed six appeals against his detention, dated 2 and 15 July 1999, 8 and 28 September 1999, 20 December 1999 and 12 January 2000. On each occasion, the applicant argued that he had no criminal record and that there was no risk that he would abscond because he had a permanent address and his wife needed his assistance after the birth of their child.
17.  None of the applicant's appeals were examined or ruled on by the courts despite of the hearings conducted by the Plovdiv District Court in the meantime.
7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Lipetsk. In 1994 he retired from military service.
8.  In 2002 he sued the Military Service Commission of the Lipetsk Region (“the Military Commission”), seeking to recover the unpaid pension for the period from February 1994 to November 1998.
9.  On 15 July 2002 the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk granted him claim in full and awarded him 32,947.11 Russian roubles (“RUR”) in respect of the unpaid pension. In November 2002 the Military Commission paid him the amount awarded.
10.  The applicant lodged a new claim against the Military Commission, seeking to recover damages incurred through belated payment of the pension.
11.  On 27 January 2003 the Pravoberezhniy District Court granted his claim and awarded him RUR 145,835.69 in damages.
12.  The Military Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment and it became binding and enforceable on 6 February 2003.
13.  On 23 February 2003 the bailiffs’ service of the Pravoberezhniy District instituted enforcement proceedings.
14.  On 20 May 2003 the Military Commission filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment, claiming that the civil-law provisions relating to compensation for damages were not applicable to pensions.
15.  On 25 September 2003 the Presidium of the Lipetsk Regional Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had correctly established the facts but erroneously applied the substantive law because the damages could only be recovered for the three years immediately preceding the judicial decision. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 27 January 2003 and rejected the applicant’s claim in full.